Basu: Ploys against gay marriage should stop

Apr. 30, 2013

The Iowa Supreme Court justices.

Written by

Of all the attempts that same-sex marriage opponents have mustered over four years to retaliate against the Iowa Supreme Court justices who ruled for it, this one may take the cake. A cake full of sour grapes, that is.

Five House Republicans are sponsoring an amendment to a state budget bill to cut the pay of the four original justices still on the court — from around $163,000, to $25,000, according to bill sponsor Dwayne Alons.

The proposal assumes a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage would be passed and ratified — even though one is not on the horizon. But even if the Iowa Constitution were to be amended, how could justices be punished retroactively for not having voted in accordance with it?

“Any justice appointed to the Supreme Court prior to April 3, 2009, and who remains a justice of the Supreme Court on or after the date the electorate ratifies a constitutional amendment declaring marriage between one man and one woman is the only valid or recognized legal union in this state, shall have the salary of the justice reduced in accordance with this section unless the justice resigns immediately,” the bill reads.

It is tempting not to give it the time of day, since it has about as much chance of becoming law as a heterosexual marriage does of crumbling each time a gay couple weds. But since it is presented as a serious proposal by five lawmakers seriously elected to make state laws, we need to take its implications seriously.

Would they have this be the new precedent, then — that whenever the court issues a particularly unpopular or controversial ruling with which legislators disagree, the legislative branch can retaliate? Will pay cuts be determined by how unpopular the ruling is? And where would that leave contentious issues like civil rights, women’s rights and racial equality?

Alons contends his bill is intended to enforce the separation of powers rather than weaken it. That’s because he argues the justices were trying to make law — which only the Legislature can do — rather than interpret the Constitution. “If they’re going to act like legislators, they should be paid like legislators,” he said.

In fact, the court found the Iowa Constitution’s Bill of Rights forbids the Legislature from granting privileges or immunities to one class of citizens that are not available to others. Marriage brings rights and privileges, and gay people are a class of citizens.

Joining Alons on this bill areReps. Tom Shaw of Laurens, Larry Sheets of Moulton, Tedd Gassman of Scarville and Greg Heartsill of Melcher-Dallas. Alons acknowledged it’s unlikely to pass in the Senate, and he faults Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, for not allowing debate on it and “feeling that he is the gatekeeper of the Constitution instead of the people.”

So why introduce a measure that will probably not pass, and even if it does, would have no impact until some hypothetical time in the future? And why now, four years after the marriage ruling? “We’ve tried other tactics,” Alons conceded. “Nothing has made it through the process.”

They have tried. Conservative politicians and activists have sought (with some success) to punish the justices by campaigning to vote them out; to impeach them; to try to change the constitution and now to dock their pay. “I’ve had nothing but support in my home district,” said Alons — not surprisingly, since his district is in conservative northwest Iowa, a region, he points out, that “voted to get rid of Wiggins.” Justice David Wiggins was, however, retained by the majority of voters.

These House members probably keep promising their constituents they’re going to fight same-sex marriage. But they’re waging a futile battle, even as other Republicans are laying down their arms. David Kochel, Mitt Romney’s senior Iowa adviser last year, wrote in this newspaper on Saturday, “As a Republican, I believe that the freedom to marry is a fundamental right. I believe that our Constitution is intended to ensure liberty, justice and equality. While I respect the views of fellow conservatives who disagree, time has shown that traditional marriage advocates are on the wrong side of history.”

The more that Iowans get used to living alongside same-sex couples, the less this will be a wedge to win elections on. It is time to end what has become an unhealthy obsession for some representatives, who need to get on with the bread-and-butter issues that matter to most Iowans.